Delhi

East Delhi

CC/943/2013

MANJUR ALAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

GO MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-943/13

In the matter of:

Sh. Manjur Alam

H.No.190, 4^th Floor, Gali No.06,

J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092                         

                Complainant

Vs

1. Go Mobile

D-100, Gali No.05, Ground Floor,

Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092

 

2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

B-1, Sector-81, Phase-2 ,Noida District,

Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)

 

3. Samsung Service Plaza

CC-28, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji,

New Delhi -110019

                                                                                                                           Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                                             DATE OF ADMISSION-21/03/2013

                                                                                                              DATE OF ORDER         -02/12/2015

ORDER

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased on 26/03/2013 “Samsung Galaxy S Duos” mobile for sum of Rs. 12,700/- regarding which retail invoice No.00007-0090424, IMEI No.354905/05/679693/3, 354905/05/679693/1 but on retail invoice IMEI number is written as 354905056796933 model: S7562, was mentioned contrary to the number on box. When the SIM Card was inserted the mobile was not responding and it was taken to the respondent shop and it was returned after repair to the complainant thereafter there was problem in charging again. It was taken to the respondent but they refused to entertain this complaint and advised him to contact service center of Samsung Mobile which is situated near Laxmi Nagar branch, he advised him that he should buy another Handset of Samsung as touch screen Mobile phone don’t having smooth functioning, he purchased Samsung Guru, so that his local profession is not affected. The service center on inspection told it has same manufacturing problem and asked him to come in the next day and on the next day they handover the mobile set with assurance that it will not have any further problem. Again on 29/07/2013 it has problem and on 03/08/2013 respondent no.3 asked for Rs.3112/- for replacement of the mother board as it is defective. The mobile handset is within warranty period. The legal notice was served upon the respondent but no consequence. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.12,700/- with 18% interest and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of litigation.

            Respondent filed their reply. In Para 2, it is alleged that the handset has one year warranty, it has provided the service as per the warranty terms. The problem of the PBA occurs due to installing/downloading of pirated/third party software that also infects the operating system of the handset with virus, in such circumstances the respondent can only reboot/reset/reinstall the operating software but the performance cannot be improved if the complainant downloads any such software again. It is alleged that the warranty does not cover user manuals or any third party software. Rest all the allegations have been specifically denied.

            Both the parties have filed on record their evidence.

            Heard and perused the record.

            The complainant who is a practicing advocate has whemently argued that he has specifically mentioned in the complaint that there was variation in the IMEI Numbers on the box and the retail invoice number and the same have not been denied by the Respondent nor they could have the courage to deny his allegations regarding approaching the Respondent No.1 at their Laxmi Nagar Shop and they advising him to go to the service centre of Samsung Mobile near Laxmi Nagar Metro Station and buying a Samsung Guru, and Respondent No.3 asking Rs.3,112/- for the replacement of the Mother board. The estimate which has been filed on record gives the reason that PBA Moisture Logged and in the Written Statement they have taken the plea that the problem was due to installation of pirated Software. Both the submissions of the Respondent are contrary to each other.  There is no evidence filed from the side of the respondent regarding the moisture causing the problem of PBA or that it was due to installation of pirated Software. There need to be some basis for alleging the defect in the handset but no such proof has been filed on record by the Respondent. The counsel for the Complainant argued that if there is moisture in the handset then this out of warranty. Nowhere in the documents issued by the Samsung, it has been written that it was out of warranty. If the problem has been caused due to any other reason than it was the obligation of the respondent to have replaced the defective part of the mobile handset, the PBA in this case, as the handset was under warranty but they have not done so. On the other hand they have taken the plea that it was a case of some pirated CD loading of which no proof has been filed on record. The respondent could not explain the contradictory pleas which they have taken nor they could elect between the two pleas they are pressing upon. The allegation of the complainant on oath regarding problem in the handset retained from the very beginning have not been specifically controverted by the Respondent. In these circumstances it shall be accepted that the handset was defective right from the very beginning. It has never given to the complainant a trouble free service. In view o f the above the complaint deserves to be allowed. The Respondent No.3 is directed to refund to the complainant the total cost of the handset i.e. Rs.12,700/- together with 9% p.a. interest thereon from the date of the filing of this complaint till it is paid to the complainant. It is clear from the record that the complainant has been harassed and mentally tortured due to malfunctioning of this handset and non rectification of the defects by the Respondent. We allow the compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of harassment, mental pain and agony. This shall also include the cost of litigation. The Respondent shall pay to the complainant the entire amount within 45 days from the date of the order & if not paid, the complainant shall be entitled for 9% p.a. interest over the compensation amount as well. The complainant shall return to the Respondent the handset alongwith accessories & the original Retail invoice on receiving the amount.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

POONAM MALHOTRA                                                                                               N.A.ZAIDI

           MEMBER                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT